The problem with the Condon study was that Condon, himself, went into the study with the intention of shelving the UFO issue for good. He said so
publicly.

There are a lot of things wrong with that study, however I don't have much time right now to go through them all. My guess is that any detailed UFO
site will have a breakdown of what it said, and what was wrong/right about it.

Thanks for the link. I will read into this a lot more. OnlyInMyDreams, this is a perfect report, from what I read so far, and is going to be very
useful to my personal UFO investigation. It could is biased, but, from what I read, it is also very intriguing and logically based. Very extensive.

Originally posted by TheManWithThePlan
Thanks for the link. I will read into this a lot more. OnlyInMyDreams, this is a perfect report, from what I read so far, and is going to be very
useful to my personal UFO investigation. It could is biased, but, from what I read, it is also very intriguing and logically based. Very extensive.

It's very well written, but it also, arbitrarily, tossed-out many important UFO sightings. That is, its critical flaw was that it ignored data...
And with 'selective' data, even the best analysis can be wrong. It was also, and this should be stated again, convened NOT to see if UFOs were
real, but to permanently show why the USAF shouldn't spend time researching them with Blue Book. J Allen Hynek, who worked on Blue Book, at first as
a debunker, then as a 'believer', would later comment at length as to how Condon was 'rigged' (I have a tape of a radio interview he did where he
is talking about just that... wher did I put it?).

I believe everyone should read the report -- don't get me wrong -- but it should be noted that the data set they are working from is not complete.

When I have more time, I'll post links up here (I can't figure out how some of you guys can be on ATS 20 hours a day... I mean, I post in like 10
minute windows while on break at work... Hmm, well, considering taht some of you guys are paid by the gov to read these sites and discredited
stuff

"...The result of an investigation into PROJECT BLUE BOOK in 1969 by Dr Edward Condon. He started the investigation saying that all UFOs are
"bunk", people who believed in them were "kooks", the authors of UFO books should be "horsewhipped" and that Blue Book was a waste of time."

Basically, the big problem with the report was that it ignored many sightings which would seem to go against the intended results of the project. For
instance, it ignored many encounters USAF/Navy pilots had with UFOs... and which were recorded on radar. It also deliberately ignored these incidents
if a crew or plane was lost... The F-89 incident from 1953 (of which there is a thread on the forum) was, i believe, pointedly tossed out because
Condon started under the assumption that the official air force explanation, in all cases, was automatically correct. Now... keep in mind that
William One Sac, a long-standing ATS member... says that his father witnessed this particular incident on his radar scope at work...

Hello,
My name is Prof. Edward Condon.
I'm here to open up a committee on why the Air Force should abandon Project Blue Book. To start off, I'd like to say that UFO's don't exist, and
that people who've seen them are all nuts. If you disagree with my opinion, you are nuts.
Now, let's look at the facts. So an F-89 vanished upon encountering a UFO detected on radar. Well, obviously, the Air Force's report on the
accident is absolutely correct. The F-89 collided with a canadian plane, exploaded at high altitude, exploded at low altitude, was lost due to pilot
vertigo, suffered engine failure, became lost and crashed outside the search area, and crashed in Canada, crashed in the lake... just as the US Air
Force has told the widows of the F-89's crew. However, that blob on the radar which engulfed it was, obviously, a radar malfunction. So, we're not
going to include this in our data. Next?
So, an RB-47 tracked a UFO for hundreds of miles on radar and other sensors, plus via the eyeballs of the crew. Well, obviously, all the instruments
in the Rb-47 were broken, and the entire crew was deranged. This won't be included in our data, either. Next?
So a F(P)-51 piloted by an experienced airman crashed in Kentucky chasing a UFO that everyone in his flight, plus the control tower nearest him,
saw... Well, as he crashed, that's an Air Incident report issue, better to be handled by the Air Force. Remove it from the data, here. Next?
So Roswell Army Air Field released a press briefing saying that they had recovered a flying disc in 1947, a press release that was certified and
cleared by the commanding general. Well, the next day they retracted it. Seems our intel officers, plus our commanding officers, don't know what a
balloon looks like. Next?
So a Brazilian naval officer, plus his crew, witnessed a UFO flying over an island. Well... he is a Brazilian, and we all know how South Americans
can be. Next?
So an experienced policeman saw a UFO. Well, cops are often stressed, so, nothing they say should really be recorded if it sounds odd. Next?

....and on, and on, until....

I, Edward Condon, conclude that the UFO issue is bunk. It turns out that my committee has, indeed, shown that it is the domain of nuts. Therefore,
just as this committee set out to do, we hereby recomend that Project Blue Book be closed. Please, if you have any UFOs to report, write your info
down and throw it in the grabage. You're obviously nuts or have just seen swamp gas.

As a scientific report covering the whole field of the subject the report is quite good. Condon's conclusions have a negative bias, but not the study
as such. Interesting for example that 100 000 balloons are (were?) in the sky every year.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.